10

I recently was in a discussion where one of the people, as an argument, claimed that Jews have been known to participate in what's activities clearly detrimental to Jews as a whole (the argument itself had nothing to do with Jews, it was merely an analogy). To support his argument, he made two claims that really didn't sound very convincing to me though he indicated he was certain both were factual as opposed to myth.

The second claim (first one brought on this Q) was that there were known large Jewish organizations that officially and actively support/lobby for the destruction of Israel today.

Do such organizations (as opposed to one or two wacky individual Jews) exist? Or was that just an exaggeration for the sake of making an argument?

Please note that I'm not asking about some supposedly rumored jew (e.g. president of Iran is not a valid example).

  • I'm not quite sure how to tag this one - please feel free to fix. – Lola May 19 '11 at 1:48
  • 5
    Sort of off topic, but the argument doesn't seem valid: it is obvious that destruction of the people of Israel would be clearly detrimental to Jews, but since Israel's existence puts a huge number of Jews in a small area vulnerable to attack by weapons of mass destruction, I can envision a robust argument against the premise, namely that opposing the state of Israel is a way to save Jews in the long run (given how different technology is now from 1940). So I don't think this obviously counts as an example of members of X participating in activities clearly detrimental to X as a whole. – Rex Kerr May 19 '11 at 2:16
  • @Rex - well, it would be considered detrimental by a vast majority of jewish people, I would think. Though it is a plausible argument to make from game theoretical perspective. – Lola May 19 '11 at 2:18
  • If the claim was only that a minority may go against what the majority thinks is in everyone's best interest, then I agree it is not problematic and would require no further argument. But that happens so often it's hardly worth picking as exotic a topic as Israel--just look at any Senate vote in the U.S. which falls along party lines save for a small number of "defectors". If the claim is that some subset of X knows that what they're doing is wrong for X, or that the subset is actually harming all of X, then I think intellectual honesty demands a robust argument that this counts – Rex Kerr May 19 '11 at 2:24
25

This one (unlike your first question's claim) is actually fully true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta

Neturei Karta opposes Zionism and calls for a peaceful dismantling of the State of Israel, in the belief that Jews are forbidden to have their own state until the coming of the Messiah.

Source: http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm (their own web site) and http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/nk.html

Please note that these are not the only ultra-orthodox Judaism group to hold such views, merely the most well publicized and acting internationally - the others are mostly just acting in Israel itself (Edah HaChareidis)

  • 3
    AFAIK there is a firm distinction between Neturei Karta and the Edah HaChareidis: Neturei Karta actively lobbies for the dismantling of the state, both in Israel and internationally; whereas the Edah HaChareidis, while philosophically opposed to the state and refusing to be affiliated with it, will not encourage it's dismantling or destruction of the state, as that might endanger the Jews currently living there. – Zev Spitz Feb 2 '17 at 7:21
  • 3
    Also, the Neturei Karta would argue that allowing the state to stand is destructive to the Jewish character, and thus to the Jewish people; in that light, their activities actually benefit the Jewish people. (apropos this comment). – Zev Spitz Feb 2 '17 at 7:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .